Thursday, June 10, 2010

Inequality and `iniquity' -- Catholic schools discriminating against the children of gay parents

A Catholic grade school in Hingham, Mass. Recently withdrew its acceptance of an 8-year-old transfer student after learning that his parents are lesbians.

This followed closely a decision at Sacred Heart of Jesus School in Boulder, Colorado, not to allow a pre-schooler and kindergartener to re-enroll next year because their parents are lesbians.

The reason given in both cases was similar: Homosexual conduct violates church teachings and and to have gay parents as part of the community of parents would undermine the Catholic mission of the school.In Being Catholic Means Not Feeling Sorry about Being Catholic, National Review Online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez writes:

A Catholic school that is being truly Catholic and fulfilling the religious portion of its mission is going to have an obvious problem with an openly gay couple being partners. The same-sex couple at the Christmas show, for example, is a lot more scandalous to what the school is trying to teach about morality than the divorced couple -- simply because the scandal is much harder to avoid. There will be hurt feelings all around; the most charitable thing for the school to do may simply be to not accept the child of, say, two lesbians into the school in the first place.

You can certainly disagree with me on this -- or with the forthright shepherd Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, or with the next Catholic school principal or pastor who has to make a call on the application of a so-called alternative family. But the school should nonetheless be free to make that decision about the identity of the school and how best they can serve all of the children in it, as a matter of religious liberty.

I certainly do disagree with Lopez on this. The idea of a school refusing to admit a child not because of anything the child has done or believes but because of who his or her parents are is grotesque though, arguably, Biblical if you believe homosexuality is iniquitous behavior:

Exodus 20:5 I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation...

[In a column in the Pilot, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston] published last week, the writer argued that one reason the children of gay parents should not be admitted to Catholic schools is the “real danger’’ that they would bring pornography to school.

In the column, [Michael Pakaluk, a former philosophy professor at Clark University in Worcester and former visiting scholar at Harvard who now teaches in Virginia] wrote that pornographic items “go along with the same-sex lifestyle, which — as not being related to procreation — is inherently eroticized and pornographic.’...’

In the column, Pakaluk also expressed concern that by welcoming gay families, Catholic schools could give children the impression that the practice of homosexuality is acceptable, as well as potentially provide an opportunity for a gay parent to “advocate for his lifestyle.’’ He added that gay parents should not be called “parents’’ unless they are biologically related to their children.

I certainly disagree with Pakaluk too (the Globe reports he regrets some of his wording choices), as does, it seems Ezekiel 18:20 :

The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Yet I also recognize that there is a certain right to grotesquery inherent in the Constitution, and that if a private group wants to have a private school on private grounds to advance and practice this sort of bigotry and, when it comes to the children, rank unfairness, so be it.

As a church-state separationist I grudgingly go along. Part of the deal of keeping religion out of government is keeping government out of religion. The admissions policies of Catholic schools are, simply, none of my business, though I was glad to hear Friday from Sister Mary Paul McCaughey, superintendent of schools for the Chicago Catholic Archdiocese, who told me, “we will never back down from teaching the Catholic faith, but we are open to everyone.”

The only way such exclusions become my business is when sectarian schools start taking my money - taxpayer money -- in the form of tuition vouchers. At that point, they’re everyone's business. Are voucher advocates ready for that?

Posted at 09:46:15 AM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

If the Catholic Church wants to marginalize itself to the point of being irrelevant and an anachronism, competing with the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church, then so be it. The First Amendment protects their right to do so. It seems simple to me: whenever a "rule" contradicts the Golden Rule, go with the Golden Rule.

In a world without vouchers, I support the Catholic church's right to admit whoever they want, regardless of my personal opinion. If Vouchers are to become reality, than I switch my position 180 degrees.

---They're actually doing the kid a favor, Catholic school is over rated and why would a gay person want to send their child to a school where they are taught that being gay is a sin? How does the Catholic Church explain that thier sin's are o.k. and forgivable but the sin's of the student's parents are not? Does part of their tuition go to a defense fund for their priests?

Look at this from the kid's viewpoint: s/he goes to school everyday where the teachers, and probably most of their classmates, think gay parents are sinners, degenerates, and worse. Do you really think it would be a good educational environment for a student??????

Or are you trying to change the fundamental tenets of a religion by subjecting a kid to daily ridicule, embarrassment and scorn?

Catholic schools are CATHOLIC, not 'better public schools'. There are Charter and other private schools nowadays for those looking for an option other than public schools.

I think you're a monster for even thinking of forcing a school and culture and religion upon a child.

In response to Bessie annd MaryContrary's posts, I sort of agree - I too can't fathom why a gay couple would want to send their kids to Catholic school. But maybe the local public schools are really bad and there are no other private schools, or the private schools are priced out of their reach.

Anyway, just change one word in this post (marked with *'s) and if it doesn't change your position: "Look at this from the kid's viewpoint: s/he goes to school everyday where the teachers, and probably most of their classmates, think *interracial* parents are sinners, degenerates, and worse. Do you really think it would be a good educational environment for a student??????"

And Eric, how is your position any different than the position the segregationists held (hold)? If private groups can create private schools on private grounds and exclude children of gays/lesbians, why can't they exclude black/Mexican/biracial/Jewish/etc. kids?

But I do think the pornography issue is an important one. Because, God knows, straight men (especially straight married fathers) never have pornography stashed somewhere. *Cough, cough*

ZORN REPLY -- It's a tough call regarding freedom of association and various gatherings/clubs/schools. Where would you draw the line?

This is exactly why I am against vouchers. I do not want my money supporting schools that are segregated or that teach strange religious tenets. Gay and lesbian parents have been sending their children to public schools for years and years. Many times when I was still teaching we wouldn't know about the parents' sexual orientation until they showed up at Open House. It was never a big deal.

During the Clinton Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development contracted with Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam to provide security guards at housing projects, including some in Chicago. I am curious if you ever complained about that.

"The Pope himself, on the matter of what he has called the “filth” of the crimes committed by abusing priests, has been forthright in asking forgiveness and talking about the need for redemption and renewal"

Yeah, it's all about forgiveness and understanding for pedophile priests, yet treating kids of monogamous, loving parents as pariahs is acceptable? I'm in a heterosexual relationship and I wouldn't send my child to a school that more or less preached a certain group of people are sub-human, which is basically what they're saying.

Although it's a great deal, if you think about it. You get two for the price of one! Bigotry and Hypocrisy.

Where I believe it has been drawn: private companies and organizations can't discriminate based on things that people can't help, such as skin color and disability.

We could argue until the cows come home whether or not homosexuality is something someone can help (personally, I'll go with not), but certainly no one can make the argument that a child can help being raised by gay/lesbian parents, can they?

Gee, when somebody gives me a good reason why the government should be in the business of running schools--I've never heard one--then we can bat heads over whether we should restrict the freedom of choice of parents who receive vouchers to spend them at the school they prefer.

ZORN REPLY -- Gee, maybe when you can give me a good reason why we should pool our tax resources to fund discriminatory schools so they can teach children how to scorn and marginalize those who mean and do them no harm, maybe we can "bat heads" about vouchers

--@Dienne...changing one word...
"Look at this from the kid's viewpoint: s/he goes to school everyday where the teachers, and probably most of their classmates, think *non-Jewish* parents are sinners, degenerates, and worse. Do you really think it would be a good educational environment for a student??????"

Is Judaism a race, or a religion or a little of both? Want to go off on a tangent and talk about the Gaza strip?

My understanding of vouchers was to give poor families a choice in which schools to send their children. The family gets a voucher in the mail which they then give to the school of their choice. The school then turns that voucher over to the government in return for cash payment. The government isn't choosing the school, it's simply funding the family's choice. How does that turn into the government establishing or prefering a particular religion?

> The idea of a school refusing to admit a child not because of anything the child has done or believes but because of who his or her parents are is grotesque

I agree, although I also agree that Catholic schools should be permitted to do so in this case.

However, is not the far more common example when private schools of all sorts refuse to admit students because of who their parents are financially? I know that is a tough one because schools need tuition money to operate but it is still troubling. If it bothers us that kids would be excluded because their parents are gay, should it bother us less that they are excluded because their parents did not go to college or are recent immigrants of the classic sort who work hard in the hopes of the next generation getting a good education and being professionally/financially successful or have chosen to go into low-paying but valuable fields (such as the military, by the way)? Actually, in a lot of cases, the kids may be excluded because their parents are solidly middle class but not in the top percentiles financially.

As I say, I know this is a tough one. I just wanted to put the question out there for thought because it was the first thing that popped into my mind after reading the (possibly overly broad) quote above.

I'd talk about the Gaza strip all day if Eric wouldn't kick us off his blog for being off topic. I can't tell for sure from your post which side of the debate you're on. Personally I think most of Israel's policy toward Gaza is unfair at best, inhumane at worst and I'm not at all in favor of the nearly absolute segregation they've imposed on the Palestinian people. However, Israel is a sovereign state and there's not a lot I can do. I do wish the U.S. would tone down it's unquestioning support of Israel and back down the funding that supports Israel's dominance of the Palestinian people. I've written to my senators and represenatives about the issue (with predictable lack of response) and, sadly, I don't feel there's much more I can/am willing to do about the issue. There are plenty of battles to be fought closer to home.

EZ: Gee, Eric, why are you complaining about discriminatory schools when you sent your son to a high school that discriminated on the basis of economics and test scores? What do you have against the kids who couldn't get in and were condemned to the CPS general population? Answer, please.

By the way, we don't fund parochial schools with vouchers, so the issue is none of your business. So why are you talking about this anyway, except as an excuse to vent more against Catholics and Catholic schools?

And why would gays want to send their kids to Catholic schools anyway? They are committing grave sin under Church teaching and they know it. So why bother? And why don't you focus a little on their hypocrisy? Stick to the point and stay away from the divorce argument, I want to hear you address this question. If you can.

BTW, I've still never heard a reason from you or anyone else as to why the government should operate schools. So keep dodging the question, why don't you?

I'm glad to see we're back to disagreeing.

ZORN REPLY -- "By the way, we don't fund parochial schools with vouchers, so the issue is none of your business." Indeed. And let's keep it that way.

You can't equate selection via test scores or other performance models with discrimination against kids because of their parents' sexual orientation. Or at least, you shouldn't bother trying.

There are gay Catholics, MCN, just as there are Catholics who violate other aspects of church teaching, and they find the overall quality of the school worth the feeling of marginalization. My mother-in-law attended Catholic school in Pittsburgh even though she's Jewish. I have several Catholic friends from college who were, shall we say, intimate participants in obtaining abortions (not to mention the intimate act that caused the pregnancy) and they're raising their kids Catholic.

As for public schools, my only answer is that it works better, overall, than the alternative. If we consider the education of our nation's youth a shared financial responsibility then, imperfect as it is, a publicly administered school system has proven the best way to go. I'm not a student of international schooling systems, but I'm unaware of any nation that does otherwise that's worth emulating. Are you?

Hey Eric-
I admire your fortitude. You post a simple, clear question and your forum fills up with people eager to change the topic so they can fight with ... someone. Your forum, your terms. Isn't that easy?

ZORN REPLY -- My facility as a provocateur is why I make the big bucks, IDTTT.

How can you talk about the gay issue without talking about the divorce issue? Catholic doctrine is clear that, with few exceptions, divorce is not permissible and remarriage is living in sin. Yet plenty of divorce and remarried people want (for whatever reason) to be part of the Catholic Church and send their kids to Catholic Schools. And the Catholic Church allows it.

So what is the difference between divorce/remarriage and homosexuality? If both are clearly against Catholic doctrine, and both are clearly living in sin, why then does one get excluded while the other does not?

As far as why the government should be operating schools, education - like healthcare - is not something that should be provided on a for-profit basis.

I agree about not wanting to get off topic onto Gaza but I cannot just let that go so I guess I would ask that Eric delete either both of our posts or neither.

What exactly would you have Israel do? Pull out its military and civilians (many of whom had to be dragged out by the military)? Done. Leave behind substantial infrastructure for free? Done. Provide substantial financial assistance? Done. Allow through materials that cannot be used to make war on Israel? Done.

The government of Gaza has a stated aim to eliminate Israel and is firing rockets at Israel's civilian population. Everywhere else, that is known as an act of war and a blockade would be considered a *mild* response. What do you suppose the U.S. would do if Canada or Mexico were firing rockets across the border?

I am sure life in Gaza is hard -- although not the humanitarian crisis it is sometimes portrayed to be -- but apparently not so hard that it is worth living in peace with Israel. Also apparently not so hard that Arab states (some of which are very wealthy) decide to help the residents financially instead of keeping them in their current situation for the propaganda benefits against Israel.

So, again, what is your proposal? I hope you will agree that it is fair to ask that:

1) It not amount to a suicide plan for Israel.

2) It not ask Israel to act in ways that we would not ask other countries to act.

Oh, and to the extent this is about the blockade, I think it is reasonable to ask why almost no one -- including you -- has any criticism of Egypt. I hope you can see how that raises concerns that the complaint is not really about Gaza but that Gaza is more of a convenient justification to criticize Israel for some other reason.

@Dienne: There are substantial differences between remarriage after divorce and homosexual union. There's a lot of literature out there on the subject and, with luck, the curious can educate themselves.

This statement is not directed to you personally, but as a general rule I'm no longer interested in acting as the Catholic educator and apologist around here. Nobody on the left cares anyway and it's a waste of my time.

Also, for the left out there, anyone who takes the position that health care and education should not be subject to the profit-motive, i.e., at least economically break even, is guaranteeing that they will lose money.

First, I think there is a strong argument that students being raised by homosexuals should be permitted to attend Catholic schools. I don't think it should be legally required, mind you, but I think there's a good policy argument. Look, Catholic schools admit children of parents who are divorced, unmarried, Protestant, and all kinds of other things the Church (rightly) believes are misguided. Personally, I think it comes down to teaching kids right vs. wrong and that bad actions mean real consequences (i.e., Hell), but also teaching them to be tolerant of people who disagree. By all means, Catholic schools should teach that homosexuality is a sin, divorce is wrong, and Martin Luther was a lunatic, but they should also teach that we live in a society where we need to tolerate those with views that are different than ours.

On the other hand, I wonder if the concerns about accepting children raised by homosexuals doesn't come down to the fear of legal liability. The excerpt above from "The Pilot" about pornography is clearly insane and is a distraction from a civil dialogue. However, if I am a Catholic school administrator, I might be concerned that if one of my teachers teaches about the immorality of homosexuality in an inflammatory way, some harebrained parent is going to hire a lawyer and sue my school for something. Regardless of whether the suit has any merit, it's at least a nuisance, and let's admit that the Church doesn't really need any more lawsuits right now.

Therefore, where I come down is that I would be inclined allow children raised by homosexuals to attend Catholic school unless the litigation factor makes it an economically unwise decision. I don't think this is a huge issue anyway because the percentage of children raised by homosexuals who seek to attend Catholic schools should be relatively small.

On to the vouchers issue. I don't really want the government subsidizing religious schools either but I'd rather have a system where money follows the children rather than the school. Let's stop forcing single people and people without children to subsidize education and put the costs where they belong - on the parents. If I lived in some loony left school district in Evanston, for example, I'd be as upset about having to support that school as others would be about having to support Catholic schools. I think it's great that Catholic kids attend Catholic schools, Protestant kids attend Protestant schools, lefty parents can send their kids to lefty schools, etc., etc., but let's come up with a rational way to allocate the costs.

Wendy, you've got your wish: Taxpayers don't support religiously based instruction or discrimination. They do support:

a) Inferior, incompetent and decrepit public schools, and
b) Discrimination on the basis of intelligence and economics. This permits liberals to simultaneously claim to support public education while ensuring that their children go to superior public schools which either have entrance exams or are in areas uninhabited by undesirables. This permits their children to avoid the hoi polloi who populate and the pathologies which characterize the above inferior, incompetent schools.

This situation is a wonderful example of the phenomona of doublethink and duckspeak which are so prevalent on the left,

Greg, who benefits from well-educated adults, the parents or society? And who ends up paying for or supporting the undereducated, isn't it the rest of us? I think we're all in this together, which is why our laws require every child, up to a certain age, attend school.

Mike -- How does profit-motive benefit education? As in getting the best results for ALL students?

Wendy, how does public education, which had turned out generations of functional illiterates, get the best resuls for all students.

I've written ad nauseam about why public education, which has insulated itself from the effects of competition, has generated results that are either below what a competitive system would produce, are more expensive than said system, or both. There is an enormous amount of literature available on the subject.

Start with Thomas Sowell's "Inside American Education", which is elderly but its points are still valid.

If someone doesn't want an education, that's their decision, not mine. I don't find that others' education benefits me all that much and I'd be happy not having to pay for it. I don't want to get involved in other peoples' parenting decisions either. It's none of my business.

We are all in this together but having a system where money follows the kid would solve a lot of these ideological arguments, as I stated earlier. I think it's wonderful that Catholic parents send their kids to Catholic schools, leftists can send their kids to leftist schools, etc. but let's not impose a burden on taxpayers to fund these decisions.

@Cheryl - You're welcome and can I please send you a bill for the taxes that I pay to support public education?

Oh, by the way, I don't even understand why these archdioceses are taking this position. The Church is confronted by so many problems that I don't understand why it's wasting its time on this. Moreover, there's good reasons for educating these children in Catholic schools.

That being said, instead of this nonsense, the Church should focus its resources on:

1) Holding accountable those religious who knowingly permitted homosexual men to be ordained (80% of the pederasty cases are homosexual) and/or moved them around, or ignored the issues. This includes firing bishops and cardinals.

2) Clean up the heresies in various religious orders, or else dissolve them.

Surely you understand that if the government did not assure access to at least some sort of education (and I am not saying the public schools necessarily do a great job), some people would go without.

Unless you are also proposing to do away with universal suffrage, do you really not see how others' education benefits you? I am not defending the education a lot of voters have now but it could be a whole lot worse.

Aside from that, who *does* benefit from others' education? The obvious example is employers. Maybe you are right. Perhaps we should stop funding education through general taxes and ramp up taxes on businesses that are getting handed an educated workforce (and it *is* educated as compared to what could exist -- and does exist in some other places) for free.

I'll try to be brief since we're off topic, but mainly what I'd have Israel do is work to heal from the trauma of the Holocaust. Traumatized people have an inability to accurately judge new potentially threatening situations and react proportionately. Israel, as a traumatized nation, reacts to and deals with threats from Hamas, etc. by disproportionately escalating the violence and oppression. Not just an eye for an eye (which itself leaves the whole world blind), but a head for an eye. Israel's escalation creates resentment and further hostility from the Palestinian people (who are essentially at this point an imprisoned population - there's plenty of research showing the expected behavior of imprisoned populations), which just increases the trauma in a continual viscious cycle.

I don't deny that Israel as a nation and the Israeli people are in some danger from a small proportion of the Palestinian population who, for various reasons both justified and unjustified, wish them harm. And I don't condone the suicide and rocket attacks which have been a part of that history. But that doesn't justify essentially locking down an entire civilian population and crippling an entire economy. There are entire neighborhoods in Chicago that face more violence than Israel faces from the Palesinians - does that justify locking those neighborhoods down and blockading supplies from going in and out? The self defense argument falls apart completely when you look at the items that have been banned from Palestinian terratories. Chocolate? Spices? What are they afraid of? A pie in the face? And how do you defend preventing exports? How can shipping anything out of Palestine harm Israel?

I also agree that there is no "humanitarian crisis" per se, but there is a moral and political crisis. It's the old saying about how you can't hold anyone else in a ditch without staying there yourself. The more that Israel can do to lift up the Palestinians, rather than pushing them down, the more they will uplift themselves. They need to find ways to unite, rather than divide. I agree that the Palestinians need to cooperate in the process too, but the Israelis have the power, so they need to lead the way. And that's a hard thing to do through a wall.

2: Giving a $3000, $5000 or even $8000 voucher would save taxpayers lots and lots of money.

3: Are you all saying it's wrong for my tax dollars to be used to fund education that differs from my own beliefs? AWESOME! I believe magnet schools cause the other schools harm by siphoning off their best and brightest. I don't want my tax dollars used to hurt the students left behind. Eliminate the magnets.

4: In the comments Greg said "lefty parents can send their kids to lefty schools". Hey Greg, technically those are called "Public Schools" That's why libs don't like vouchers. Vouchers would reduce their power base.

5: We have to pay $5.00 to meet Zorn? I think that transaction is backwards.

Since the issue of vouchers keeps getting raised, I have to ask, how exactly does that work? Exactly what private schools are all of these voucher kids going to go to? Most private schools I know of are at or above capacity. If you suddenly have thousands or tens of thousands of kids with funds for private school, where are the slots going to come from?

Help me out here, you econ gurus - what happens to price when supply remains constant but demand goes up? Oh yeah, it goes up too. So how does it help me if I have $4,000 from Uncle Sam to send my kid to private school, but private school now starts at $8,000? And if I was previously able to afford to send my kid to private school without Uncle Sam's help, then chances are I don't qualify for a voucher, so what am I supposed to do when tuition goes up because of all the new demand for private schools?

Yes, yes, of course, eventually the increased demand will spur increased supply and prices may go back down - that's how econ works. But schools don't get built overnight (well, some do, but the results have been pretty dubious). So what are people supposed to do while they're waiting for the capitalist types to build new schools?

"School choice" always sounds like such a wonderful democratic thing - who could be opposed to choice, right? But if and when it happens, the people - once again - are going to find they've been sold a bill of goods. People are going to find that they're priced out of private education (like they already are) and there's going to be no public education to fall back on. Hope you enjoy homeschooling. Or that your kid enjoys burger flipping.

@MCN - Your last comment is spot on. I completely agree with your reforms and that they should be the top priorities of the Church. Well said.

@JL - I'm saying that I don't want to interfere in the parental decisions of others, I don't see tangible evidence of how it benefits me, and I don't care whether some people voluntarily go without education. However, if someone wants his kid to have a K-12 education but can't afford it, then by all means the state should make a transfer payment to that parent. Your business tax idea isn't without merit but do we really want corporate tax rates to increase? That's more companies and jobs that, as an international tax lawyer, I'll have to help send overseas. Let's not make America even less competitive.

Hmmm, I don't disagree with much that you wrote about the economics of vouchers. Yes, we would have to think about how to construct a system that takes into account the considerations you listed, and there will be a lag effect in the building of new private schools as you describe. However, if we have education money following the kid as I describe above, I think we would see increased efficiencies in how education money is spent.

Your school choice point is less convincing. Let's be clear, school choice already exists for people who can afford it. A lot of people my age with kids move to the suburbs for the sole purpose of sending their kids to better schools. Really. In my opinion, if you want to move so that you can send your kid to a school that reflects your priorities and values, or has more people with whom you have religion, race, income level, etc. in common, that's wonderful. However, poor people don't have that choice so they are stuck in the undesirable schools. I'd like to come up with some system that addresses this problem.

ZORN REPLY -- If I had a talk radio show, I'd clearly simply have to open it each day by saying, "Vouchers: Bad. To discuss, call me at 591-9676..." then put my feet up.

My point about "school choice" is that the whole mission is a stealth attack on the currently available choice of public education - if the school choicers get their way, there won't be anymore public education. In which case "choice" for all but the very rich will come down to teaching your kids how to say, "Hello, welcome to Wal-Mart" or "Would you like fries with that?"

Another point I'd like to address is this prevailing idea that public education has been an overwhelming fail. On the contrary, quite the opposite. Free public education has been one of the biggest factors in making the U.S. the world leader it is. There is a direct correlation between how well a country educates its children and that country's standing in the world and standard of living.

Sure, there are a number of schools, particularly in rough, poor, urban environments, that are chronically "underperforming" where the students' tests scores are alway on the bottom end of the scale. But that has much more to do with the difficulties of educating kids in rough, poor, urban areas than with any inherent defect in the public school system. There is absolutely no evidence that private schools by and large have any better luck in such environments. Perhaps a better solution would be more mixed income housing developments so that all the poor kids don't get lumped in one school together?

But the vast majority of public schools, particularly in suburban, exurban and rural areas all perform on a par with private schools which educate similar populations. In fact, one of the sources Eric listed in his debate on vouchers with Byrne was an article that talked about how many conservative politicians are backing away from the issue of vouchers and other privitization measures because of vehement opposition from their constituents who take enormous pride in their local public schools.

ZORN REPLY -- If I had a talk radio show, I'd clearly simply have to open it each day by saying, "Vouchers: Bad. To discuss, call me at 591-9676..." then put my feet up.

GREG J REPLY -- Ha, I think you're right about that. Maybe you should put that plan into action? I'd tune in.

@Dienne - My hope is that they would be taught to say those things in clear English. Look, my attack on public education isn't stealth at all. Let's change how we fund education so that we can have the money follow the kid (I know, I sound like a broken record) and parents can send their kids to the type of school that they prefer. I don't care if it's vouchers, changes in the tax law, or whatever. As it stands, school choice exists for all but the poorest among us.

To bounce off Pan's comment, do you have any sources to back up your claim that 80% of the offending priests have been homosexual? Hint: just because a predator preys on a victim of the same sex does not make that person gay.

Re the 80%, do the research yourself. As I said before, I'm not doing it any more.

The fact is that the RCC knowingly or recklessly ordained homosexual priests for decades, in contravention of policy, and it blew up in the Church's face, and now it's paying th price. You don't have to like this, but these are facts well known in Catholic circles. As, however, most of you do not inhabit Catholic circles I'm unclear why it's interesting.

@Dienee: There is extensive literature on vouchers. Start with Milton Friedman in "Capitalism or Freedom" (one short chapter, but you should read the whole book) or "Free to Choose".

Also read Sowell "Inside American Education" and the education chapters in Abigail and Stephen Thernstrom's book on race in America.

Your comment "Free public education has been one of the biggest factors in making the U.S. the world leader it is" is merely assertion. What you do not see is how much better American educational results could have been had not we used a market driven solution. This kind of reminds me of Henry Hazlitt's broken window analogy.

No, see, here's how it works, MCN, if you're going to make a claim that something is true and you want to be believed, it is up to YOU to back yourself up. It's not my job chase down every BS claim you care to pull out of your, er, left shoe.

None of the gay priests - and gay men as a group - I've known (and, no, I'm not Catholic, but have sung in Catholic churches for years and therefore know a lot of gay people, mostly men, some priests) are in the least bit interested in children (in "that way"). That is something quite different & often even those who abuse boys are not gay.

It is not just the Holocaust -- or for that matter, the thousands of years ending in 1945. I have no idea how old you are (nor am I asking) but I was just discussing with someone earlier this week that probably a majority of the world and much of the adult population was either born after the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars or was young enough that it has no memory of them. From 1948 until at least 1973, Israel was an underdog nation that faced a very real threat of being wiped out by neighbors with far larger militaries. However, at this point, much of the world only knows Israel as a relatively strong country, facing no immediate threat to its existence (partly due to taking out Saddam Hussein's nuclear program -- for which it caught the usual international condemnation -- and now facing a possibly similar problem with Iran) that seems to be mistreating a weaker group. I actually think this is an important point for Israel and its supporters to realize since they probably tend too much to see traditional anti-semitism in what may be a natural tendency to support what looks like a weak group being oppressed by a strong one.

So, it is not just the trauma of the Holocaust. Also, I hope you realize that " what I'd have Israel do is work to heal from the trauma of the Holocaust" is similar to saying that slavery in the U.S. ended in 1865 so the main solution to any race-based problems is for African Americans to work to heal from the trauma of slavery.

I think everyone -- most of all, Israelis -- knows that the status quo is bad for everyone, except possibly those Arab governments (including the Palestinian ones) that would have to get down to serving their people if they could no longer point to this issue. Everyone also basically knows what a peaceful solution, two-state would look like. Israel has offered it -- including eliminating the main supposed Palestinian grievance by leaving Gaza unilaterally. The Palestinians have rejected it many times. Their leaders do not want peace and as Gaza and the West Bank have become more democratic (not at the level of the U.S., Western Europe, or Israel but pretty democratic), this really means the people do not want peace. Well, I am sure they do but as a result of eliminating Israel, not negotiating with it.

This is not the equivalent of blockading a high-crime area of Chicago. It is more like blockading the Confederacy, although that certainly is not a perfect analogy. This is a self-governing group that has decided through its leaders to make war. One could argue that it actually was less fair for the Allies to bomb Germany and Japan in World War II since those civilian populations probably had less control over their governments than the Palestinians do.

If you have a specific solution, I actually would really like to hear it (as would the Nobel Peace Prize committee, I am sure). With all due respect, "heal" and "lift up" are not terribly concrete.

By the way, I will give you at least one proposal, if only as a straw man to which you can react. Israel could unilaterally declare a two-state solution. Pull completely out of the West Bank, as it did from Gaza. Pay the serious internal political costs of dragging the settlers out kicking and screaming. End the blockade. Support UN membership for the new country. Make some sort of provision for free (although presumably heavily supervised and inspected) travel across Israel to get between Gaza and the West Bank.

Then treat this as an independent country as we all understand that term. Allow entry of these foreign citizens at whatever level serves Israel's interests, including none at all if Israel wishes. Handle any financial assistance as a matter of foreign aid. (By the way, I would argue that even if one felt Israel created the current economic situation, it is not unreasonable to say that in exchange for all these other actions, the U.S., the E.U., wealthy Arab oil states, etc. can provide the money to help build this new nation.)

Most important, any attacks against Israel would be treated as an attack by one country on another.

One of two things would happen. First, maybe it would work. If so, fantastic. Second, maybe this new nation would attack Israel, Israel would invade, and we would be basically back at 1967 after getting a lot of civilians and soldiers on both sides killed. I will leave it to you to suggest what Israel should be entitled to from the international community if that happens.

Sorry about this getting so long, especially off topic. As you probably can see, this sort of thing really gets to me -- especially in the last week. I kind of have to wonder what the point is at which the world would be prepared to say, "Yeah, ok, Israel kind of has a point." Not that it would be much comfort but I wonder if it would happen if Israel's enemies ever actually did succeed in destroying it.

Oh, as to the strange things on the blocked list and that sort of thing: Honestly, I have no idea. Maybe there is a rational reason, maybe it is bureaucracy, maybe it is even malice by someone in the government. I certainly am not going to defend Israel's policy down to the last detail and if you really want to see criticism of any Israeli government, regardless of party, read the Israeli press. :) But let's have some perspective on this. If the blockade overreaches, people in Gaza don't have chocolate. It seems to be established that they do have food. If it under-reaches, people in Israel have rockets coming down on them.

No, Dienne, let me put it this way: It's not a BS fact, and I'm not going to cite chapter and verse to "Goodbye Good Men" or George Weigel or First Things or the Catholic press. Period. Believe me or disbelieve me as you please.

Sorry, one more thing I would ask you to consider. Hamas -- the government in Gaza -- would unquestionably destroy Israel if it could. Israel clearly could destroy Gaza. It has a much stronger military and is a nuclear state. If one removed any moral concerns about slaughtering one's enemies (i.e., basically behaved like Hamas), it actually might make some practical sense for Israel to do. Yet, Israel continues what is actually a fairly restrained and humane policy. Maybe we take that for granted because the U.S. also spends a lot of blood and treasure to fight wars the hard but moral way most of the time but it is really a somewhat uncommon way to do things and one that Israel has never been able to expect in return. On two specific points:

1) What do you think would be going on in that area today if Arab states had captured Israel in 1967 instead of losing their own land to it?

2) Does anyone really think that if Israel's enemies had developed nuclear weapons 40 years ago, they would not have been used yet?

@Dienne Your economic premise is flawed. Vouchers do not cause the supply of students to increase nor do they increase the demand for education. Both stay the same. Resources would not need to be replicated, they would simply be redeployed.

A more pertinent economics question is this: What happens to quality and value when competition increases?

PS: It's funny you profess a lack of economic understanding. A study out this week showed that Dems are worse in economic understanding than Repubs. I guess that's why y'all believed ObamaCare would reduce costs despite adding millions of new customers and holding supply steady.

Apparently many are still ignorant of the fact that pedophalia and homosexuality are two different things.

It's interesting to hear how many people are complaining about the CPS schools, yet support vouchers which would result in the same breakdown of schools that Chicago has now. The well off and intellectually brighter kids would end up in the best schools (aren't they the best because of this unique population?) and the rest would be left behind. And what guarantee would parents have that the school of their choice would accept their child? Like Dienne said, where are all these new schools going to come from? As for the problem students, all these people criticizing Eric for trying to get the best education for his children would howl in anger if any of those kids left behind were shipped to their school districts in the elite suburbs. And I still don't have an answer for how a for profit system would improve the education for ALL.

Greg says let the money follow the student. Well that's a start, considering the disproportunate way students in different districts are funded now. But the main problem here is the location of the ill performing students and their environments. Which, well, seem to be where the worst performing schools are located.

"This permits their children to avoid the hoi polloi who populate and the pathologies which characterize the above inferior, incompetent schools."

Yeah, that's what vouchers will solve. Still leaves the question, what do we do with the hoi polloi?

GREG J REPLY -- Ok, so my reply was flippant but I'm not sure my facts are wrong as they apply to the priest scandal. The vast majority of the priest abuse cases involved post-pubescent teens so technically the term "pedophile" wouldn't apply, right? That leaves us with "homosexual," right? Also, I'm not up on the finer points of sexual identification, and it's not an issue that I care a lot about (so I'm not going to follow-up on this point with anyone), but one who engages in homosexual acts is, to me, a homosexual. Or at least that's a really, really good rule of thumb.

Listening to a straight-laced, conservative attorney trying to explain his comment about the definition of homosexuality gave me the best laugh in weeks. Thanks Greg, next time keep it simple. Like many of my other conservative friends have said, 'it's an exit, not an entrance'. That should do it.

ZORN REPLY: You can't equate selection via test scores or other performance models with discrimination against kids because of their parents'

MCN REPLY: Your son's school discriminates on the basis of intelligence and economics. It discriminates. Period. It's just that it's a form of discrimination of which you approve, especially since it inures to your benefit.

ZORN REPLY: There are gay Catholics, MCN, just as there are Catholics who violate other aspects of church teaching, and they find the overall quality of the school worth the feeling of marginalization. My mother-in-law attended Catholic school in Pittsburgh even though she's Jewish. I have several Catholic friends from college who were, shall we say, intimate participants in obtaining abortions (not to mention the intimate act that caused the pregnancy) and they're raising their kids Catholic.

MCN REPLY: I think you missed my later post in which I questioned the wisdom of what the archdioceses are doing.

Re your last couple of sentences, the state of one's soul has nothing to do whether one raises one's child Catholic or not, although I suggest that people not in an habitual state of mortal sin are probably doing a better job at it than those who are, and I am glad your friends are raising their children in the faith. One hopes, however, they have received absolution or they are automatic self-excommunicants and, in fact, abortion is a sin of such grave moral turpitude that ordinarily only a bishop may provide absolution.

ZORN REPLY: As for public schools, my only answer is that it works better, overall, than the alternative. If we consider the education of our nation's youth a shared financial responsibility then, imperfect as it is, a publicly administered school system has proven the best way to go. I'm not a student of international schooling systems, but I'm unaware of any nation that does otherwise that's worth emulating. Are you?

MCN REPLY: The facts are counter to this assertion, as is (not surprisingly) commonly accepted economic theory. One has a good that can be supplied by the private market. No externalities are involved. Government wishes to subsidize production of that good. That does not mean that government should produce the good, which has many deleterious economic effects which we have discussed ad nauseam but the left still does not understand.

As I've said many times, I attended Catholic schools in stable white, working and middle class areas, that were cheaper and better than the public alternative. It is clear that alternative sources can provide educational services that are equal to or better than public schools at equal or lower prices. Compare Loyola Academy to Glenbrook.

NEW ZORN REPLY -- Really, MCN, this is beneath your standards. By your lights, we should be raging that the Chicago Cubs is a discriminatory organization because it only hires men who are very, very talented at baseball. Or we should shutup entirely about the whole issue of discrimination.
That's simply insipid.

@Alex (btw, are you also known as Alex Larou? If you're name hopping around here, that's a black mark right there. If not, my apologies)

Wow, your ignorance is really showing. No, of course vouchers don't increase the overall demand for education. But they do increase the demand for PRIVATE education, which was the point of my post. If kids want to stay in pubilc school, they don't need a voucher for that.

There are only so many private schools available right now. It's not like public schools are simply going to convert to private school. There would be a certain number of kids from each eligible public school who would want to go to private schools, while the remaining kids stay in their current public school. Slots in private schools would fill up, while public schools would operate below capacity. So we'd actually be spending more to send these kids off to overcrowded public schools because the cost savings don't work out on a student by student basis. (As just one example, you'd need to have at least 25 or so students per grade level leave public school before you could lay off one teach and save that salary; if only one student leaves, you don't save 1/25th of a teacher's salary because that teacher is still teaching the other 24 kids.)

Dienne, it will take time to fix the economics of publicly financed education, just as it took time to break it. My child's school was founded about ten years ago and is only now beginning to achieve sustainable traction. However, that's in part because tuition is relatively high because we have not reached the bottom of the average cost curve.

If this school (and the many others like it that would spring up) was being subsidized with a voucher system, people would be banging on the door to get in, it's that good.

MCN, Zorn asked you if you know of any civilized nation that leaves it entirely up to its citizenry to educate its own children. You responded with libertarian gobbledygook. Since you're so fond of demanding that others respond to your points, let's ask you again: Are you aware of any nation worth emulating that does not use public funds to educate its children?

ZORN REPLY -- I was actually more specific than that, as I don't think MCN is opposed to public FUNDING of education. He wants us to give money to parents so they can send their kids to Catholic schools, preferably ones where they will not catch the gay.

---I started school at Graeme Stewart School, 4500 N. Kenmore Ave. It was a regular neighborhood school in a district that was far from wealthy but it produced some decent students. Harrison Ford was about 5 years ahead of me at that school and William Friedkin, the director of "The Exorcist," was about 12 years ahead of me.

I really wish one of the liberals here would explain to me why they think Chicago Public School system has fallen so far. Why has a school system that used to produce successful and famous people become such a toilet? Is someone poisoning the water in Lake Michigan causing today's students to be not as intelligent as students in years past?

What exactly is the reason for the collapse of public education in Chicago?

ZORN REPLY -- Before any of us take a stab at it, JimmyG, after you. You must have some idea what the answer is since you ask it in such an aggressive way. So have at it. Favor us with the fruits of your fine public education.

Never ask MCN to back up an assertion with facts.it makes him testy and regretful of his inability to clearly express his thoughts.

And this embarasses him, as it causes him to fall to the floor and kick and scream right there in that small exclusive private school he has puportedly founded.

It causes that elite student body to violate the 4th commandment en masse by doubting their parent's wisdom in sending them for schooling to such a ninny; which, of course, allows me to accuse MCN of corrupting youth (though a small elite group)!

I suppose I would begin with the breakdown of the traditional family. Out-of-wedlock births. (There were comparatively few out-of-wedlock births when I was a kid, even in Uptown where we lived). What caused the breakdown of the family, you might ask? The decline of the influence of religious morality.

The decline of the old-time, prudish religion that you hate so much. THAT, in my opinion, is the number one factor in the collapse of public education.

ZORN REPLY -- I don't hate religion at all, Jimmy. I'm simply not religious and resent those who are religious trying to compel others to subscribe to or sponsor their beliefs. Big difference.

My recollection, and you'll forgive me for not researching this but others can feel free, is that divorce, single parenthood/out of wedlock births and so on tend to be HIGHER in so-called "Bible Belt" states where rates of church attendance and so on are comparatively higher. And that when you compare the US to other nations where God belief is far lower, you don't find a particular correlation between faith and what you'd think of as moral behavior.

That said, I don't think an honest analysis could brush off the apparent role of increased rates of family dysfunction in the rise of certain social ills. But the causes of that are numerous, don't you think? Increased mobility, increased employment instability, the dark sides of technological advancements.

And finally there is the question of whether the school system you remember from your warm-fuzzy past really was doing any better by kids in blighted communities from broken homes and kids with learning disabilities than schools are today. I suspect not.

Is your answer, nevertheless, that we should use tax dollars to pay for religious indoctrination of America's youth in hopes of diminishing rates of single parenthood?

I'm curious what it is that makes your school so great? What is it you do differently than the public schools? In particular, I'm curious how you'd handle the types of students Wendy works with - learning disabled, behavioral issues, home life problems, neighborhood violence, etc. What would you do with them that Wendy doesn't do?

I have a feeling that your answer is along the lines of "we don't accept them in the first place". Wendy, on the other hand, doesn't have that option.

A couple of thoughts about Jimmy G's post about Graeme Stewart school:

First, every situation has some survivors. There are a few who, regardless of the surroundings, have the je ne sais quoi that it takes to survive and move on. What doesn't kill them makes them better.

Second, Harrison Ford wasn't a famous movie star when he went to Graeme Stewart. William Friedkin wasn't a director. My daughter had a childhood friend who won an Oscar a couple of years ago - for the screenplay for "Juno." You wouldn't have pointed to her as a child and remarked that that girl is going to win an Oscar some day.

I'm the oldest of six kids, and grew up in Maine. My next younger brother was a classmate at UMaine with Stephen King; he says that King was really weird. My youngest brother had King as an English teacher at Hampden (Maine) Academy; he says that it's a great boon to education that King became a writer. You never know how people are going to turn out.

---@Dienne: My ignorance is showing? Sorry, I'm not the one who's contending that private schools are bursting at the seams. Even this non-Catholic knows the Diocese is closing dozens of schools a year due to declining enrollment. In any event, states with charter schools have shown that your 1950s version of what a school should look like has been blown to smithereens. Are you at all familiar with the state of the commercial property market?

In any event, your "concern" over private schools raising tuition due to increased supply is a straw man. If you really think they'll raise tuition and no one will use their voucher that puts you in a position where you should be indifferent to vouchers instead of opposed to them. If you believe vouchers will increase demand at private schools you should be in favor of them because that will reduce government expenditures, as proven in Milwaukee.

Here's a small taste:
I'd like to start a game of SimVoucher right here in this discussion.

Let's start with the town of Smallville, 500 families with 1000 school-aged kids. 600 send their kids to Ordinary School, a public K-12; 200 send their kids to Heaven Academy, a parochial school and 200 send their kids to Fancy Prep, a private, non-sectarian school. Ordinary operates on a budget of $6,000 a year per pupil--- $3.6 million a year. Heaven charges $4,000 tuition; Fancy, $8,000.

The train arrives one day carrying a man selling parents an alluring idea: "Choice! With a capital C that rhymes with V that stands for Vouchers! Why should you let the gummint tell you where to spend the educational dollars allocated to your children? It should be your choice. Take the $6,000 that Smallville bureaucrats and educrats spend promulgating their godless curriculum and bloated unions and spend it on the education of your choice!"

The parents are seduced by this idea: "Make the schools compete for my $6,000!" they say and they pass a full-blown voucher plan.....

I don't know what kind of cretins run catholic private schools, but as a graduate of a private Lutheran school, 2 grades to a classroom, 1 teacher per day, I know that our school was only expensive for those who could afford it and cheap or free to those who couldn't.

A voucher system in such a school would be a boon on average as the school would basically be getting full price tuition from all voucher students. Is this what catholic schools are angling for? Actual full price tuition via vouchers from all students? It would certainly give a big boost to their bottom lines.

I have to wonder what gay parents would want to send their kids to a catholic school knowing the culture there. Could those same parents then be accused of poor parenting? Lax and indifferent parenting?

A big Lutheran shout-out to all others out there. Glad to see the loose and easy catholic church is still such an easy target, glad we don't believe in all that self-serving nonsense and just focus on God.

By the way, we know why the catholic church has such a problem with its priests. It's based in science, which we accept, and don't try to quash. Studies have shown that homosexuality in men increases in likelihood the farther down the birth order a man is. First sons are relatively (but not entirely) less likely to be gay than the third son. And what did good catholic families do in the early part of the 20th century? They had lots of kids, which meant lots of sons, and then they passed on the family business to the firstborn son, the second born went into public service, and the third born went into the priesthood. All those third born sons, in the priesthood.

Personally, I think the law should be home-schooling for all. Require at least one parent remain at home with the children all day, every day. It's the basic requirement for good parenting and the demise of that concept is the root of everything that is wrong with today's society in mainstream America.

First, I'm going to guess from your lack of response that you are Alex Larou. Only he can be so nasty while simultaneously being so ignorant.

Second, are you saying that Catholic schools are the only private schools? If you are correct that Catholic schools are experiencing decreasing enrollment then that should perhaps be a wake up call to the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean all private schools have decreased enrollment.

Third, are you completely ignorant of basic econ? Are you denying that vouchers will increase the demand for private education? Are you denying that increased demand means increased prices?

NEW ZORN REPLY -- Really, MCN, this is beneath your standards. By your lights, we should be raging that the Chicago Cubs is a discriminatory organization because it only hires men who are very, very talented at baseball. Or we should shutup entirely about the whole issue of discrimination.
That's simply insipid.

MCN REPLY: This is a non-reply to which I will make no further reply except: I am a little peeved, as to your suggestion that I favor declining admission to the children of homosexual couples. I don't. You, however, are happy to decline admission to students who would make your child's school a true Chicago public school. How convenient. If you had to put your kids in a general population CPS high school, you'd bolt for private education or the suburbs in a heartbeat, and I wouldn't blame you.

To my other fans: I've posed so many questions to you that you've left unanswered that, as before, I simply am no longer going to respond to you. Keep bloviating if it pleases you, I'm not interested.

ZORN REPLY -- I'm not imputing to you the belief that the children of gay parents should be denied admission to Catholic schools. I am wondering, however, if your enthusiasm for the concept of vouchers extends to allowing schools that do exclude such children to receive voucher funds.

You persist in personalizing this school debate in the misbegotten belief that opposition to vouchers demands sending one's children to poor-performing, dangerous inner city high schools or else enduring the shame of hypocrisy.

And you persist in the idea that creating schools and programs to meet the needs of more highly performing students is somehow similar to or tantamount to the sorts of racial and ethnic and religious discrimination that all decent people deplore.

I've answered this before and will do so again:

I favor free lunch programs for poor kids even though my kids don't eat them and I'll send them to school with their own lunches.

I favor strong tax support for County hospital (can't get used to calling it Stroger) and free clinics for the poor even though my family goes to private hospitals.

I favor the Section 8 Housing program and decent housing for the poor even though I don't and won't ever, I hope, have to live in Section 8.

And I favor the maintenance and strengthening of public education at all levels and in all communities as a social good even though I won't be sending my children to the roughest of those schools. And I may even be joining you in, where is it, Lake Forest? We can run against one another for neighborhood association president. My platform will be to socialize everything.

Dienne: No, my school doesn't take those students. It takes average run of the mill students who don't have LD or personality issues. We're not equipped to do so and those students need specific services of the type you provide and perhaps, entire schools devoted to them. I don't feel any guilt about it.

My local public schools bury those students so they're never seen by the bright kids. Kind of like where Eric sent his son to high school, I'll bet.

--"By the way, we know why the catholic church has such a problem with its priests. It's based in science, which we accept, and don't try to quash. Studies have shown that homosexuality in men increases in likelihood the farther down the birth order a man is. First sons are relatively (but not entirely) less likely to be gay than the third son. And what did good catholic families do in the early part of the 20th century? They had lots of kids, which meant lots of sons, and then they passed on the family business to the firstborn son, the second born went into public service, and the third born went into the priesthood. All those third born sons, in the priesthood."

Studies? I'd like to see a link on this, the most fantastic example of BS I've ever seen. Every third son is destined to be homosexual, so they ended up in the Church? Incredible.

@MCN

How fortunate the students of your school never have to 'see' those kind of students. Because your district has enough money to ship them where they become someone else's problem? How convenient.

"To my other fans: I've posed so many questions to you that you've left unanswered that, as before, I simply am no longer going to respond to you. Keep bloviating if it pleases you, I'm not interested."

Oh, please, you're starting to sound like our old friend JerryB, who I miss and hope will come back. This is not like you.

Eric, also, thanks for your finally responsive response. I actually have work to do today, so, without going line by line, I don't agree that your litany of public charities is not the same thing as providing a service, it's simply not the same thing. I certainly agree with those items, but it doesn't justify a public school system.

"The fraternal birth order effect accounts for approximately one seventh of the prevalence of homosexuality in men."

Interesting, but not very scientific. And in this effect it was shown that "the incidence of homosexuality correlated with an increase in older brothers is seen only in right-handed males."

Well, that leaves out all of the homosexual men from small families, including firstborn, and left-handed males. It doesn't include women at all.

Peter Bearman (2002) questions the sampling method of Blanchard and other scientists who report a link between fraternal birth order and sexual orientation. He says that the studies work with nonrepresentative samples, and/or indirect reports on siblings’ sexual orientation. After repeating the experiment done by Blanchard he found "no association between same-sex attraction and number of older siblings, older brothers, or older sisters".

As I said interesting, but hardly conclusive. And this represents a very small fraction of all homosexuals.

@Zorn: Nice to see your (public?) education paying off in humor. I will remember "luces por favor" forever because I sat by the door.

@Dienne: Flogging a straw man doesn't turn him to flesh. Your "lack of buildings"and tuition increases theories are irrelevant to the discussion, unlike Obamacare where lack of doctors and lack of hospitals will lead to price increases and/or reduction of services.

BTW, this will be my last response to you not because I concede anything but because attempting conversation with you is about as productive as attempting conversation with a jackhammer. Actually, I find the jackhammer more intellectually stimulating.

@Wendy C..."The fraternal birth order effect accounts for approximately one seventh of the prevalence of homosexuality in men."

Interesting, but not very scientific. And in this effect it was shown that "the incidence of homosexuality correlated with an increase in older brothers is seen only in right-handed males."

Well, that leaves out all of the homosexual men from small families, including firstborn, and left-handed males. It doesn't include women at all."
.
.
.
Whatever. Dance, twist, turn, put your hands over your eyes, ignore what you want.

Just think on these facts: the catholic priesthood seems to have a disproportionate level of gay men in it. It was indeed the catholic family tradition for a while to send one son into the priesthood, usually a younger son.
Whether fraternal birth order explains everything or only somethings, it is a fact that younger sons probably became clergy at a higher rate. So what kind of logic is it to think that the disproportionate level of gay men in the priesthood and the disproportionate percentage of younger sons in the priesthood might be related?

I believe there is a Flat-Earth Society still active today, if you are looking for other 'facts' to ignore.

General note on gays in the priesthood: At one point, I have it on extremely good authority (probability: 100%) that perhaps one third of the seminarians at Mundelein were gay. I will not divulge the source no matter how insistent people get.

The priestly vow of celibacy acts as a filter. It filters out those men for whom a physical relationship with a woman is a high priority. One thing that is little understood about filters is that they increase the concentration of those constituents not filtered out. So, if the concentration of male homosexuals in the general population is, say 10 per cent (a number I've heard, but am too lazy to look up right now) and you filter out those men who can't live without heterosexual sex, the concentration of homosexual males in the priesthood will be higher, and likely much higher, than ten per cent. So, 33 per cent wouldn't surprise me.

@j meehan: just messin' with you that time but the pero was a legit miss on my part. I'm a terrible speller in any language. The only french I know is frites, and man o man I love me some frites at KiKi's Bistro. Heading out now to commence drinking some bordeaux. Enjoy your weekend and avoid fights everyone, especially you dienne, mon amour.

MCN has made no secret of where he lives. And if you want to know anything about his school, ask him. Even if I had pertinent info on another commenter, I wouldn't pass it along, wouldn't be appropriate.

And DaveB makes a very good point about the concentration of homosexual males being higher in the priesthood. But, the attraction of pedophiles to the church would also be higher, as it is with any vocation where contact with children is greater.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.